another abuser caught - Page 7

Stuartbe · 23-03-2004, 21:05

Agreed.... There is no perfect solution... Though I do feel that if they have ofended once then they should be watched....

What about radio tagging thats discreet for the wearer... If they go near a school or playpark then it signals the police ?

downquark1 · 23-03-2004, 21:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuartbe

Agreed.... There is no perfect solution... Though I do feel that if they have ofended once then they should be watched....

What about radio tagging thats discreet for the wearer... If they go near a school or playpark then it signals the police ?

I think that would be an expectable compromise.

zendawn · 23-03-2004, 21:44

Anyone watching the program on BBC2?
The ordinary pedo gets riot dressed police smashing down their doors mob handed, but Pete Townsend gets forewarned and has press officers and the gently gently approach.

OMG just seen some dumb blond holding up a sign saying 'shut down the site, NOT PETE'

Eh? why? keep the site up as a honeytrap and arrest Pete as a pedo surely.

Chimaera · 23-03-2004, 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by zendawn

Anyone watching the program on BBC2?
The ordinary pedo gets riot dressed police smashing down their doors mob handed, but Pete Townsend gets forewarned and has press officers and the gently gently approach.

(Sarcastic mode on)
Yes but he wasn't really a paedo was he - he was only doing it for research

(Sarcastic mode off)

zendawn · 23-03-2004, 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera

(Sarcastic mode on)
Yes but he wasn't really a paedo was he - he was only doing it for research

(Sarcastic mode off)

I think we hear him being interviewed too.

23-03-2004, 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuartbe

The trouble is that one failure is one to many ! If it lets a dangerous pervert walk the streets !

You may not be aware of this, but the actual *aim* of our system of justice is *not* to punish the guilty, but to *prevent* the innocent from being convicted. That is *why* we have principles such as "innocent until proven guilty".

Yes, sometimes someone slips through the net. Yes, sometimes mistakes are made (on both sides!), but I think what we have is better than any other system.

23-03-2004, 23:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

On 2001 over five *THOUSAND* children were killed or seriously injured in accidents on Britain's roads.

Can you *really* just ignore that with a glib comment??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Yes as it has sod all to do with what we are talking about.

Well since you have snipped everything else, it appears we're now talking about nothing, except, perhaps, the following...

Quote:

Nothing personal - I am sure you are a nice guy but your prioritys are well screwed up !!!!!

Quote:

Which, I think, says it all.

Stuartbe · 23-03-2004, 23:04

You are of course entitled to you opinion m8... I respect that....

As I said before - we will have to agree to dissagree...

And yes I am aware of how our justice system works ! I have been envolved in many court cases ! how many have you been envolved with ?

23-03-2004, 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

If you offer assistance you can encourage them to come forward for the help, but few would volunteer for prison.

Hence the unsurprising non-take up of the recent offer that people who had down-loaded kiddie porn from the net could get their computers "cleaned" of it, but *only* if they put their names down on the sex offenders register!

What a brilliant idea *that* was...

23-03-2004, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuartbe

What about radio tagging thats discreet for the wearer... If they go near a school or playpark then it signals the police ?

An interesting concept, but what sort of radius do you put on it? Is 500 yards too close? What if that's three streets over? What about sweet shops? What about if they get on the bus that the kids catch from school, but two stops down the line so they're out of the restricted area?

I'm sorry if people think I'm being negative or "not supplying solutions", but the fact is that any system can be beaten if someone wants to try hard enough.

23-03-2004, 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuartbe

You are of course entitled to you opinion m8... I respect that....

As I said before - we will have to agree to dissagree...

Of course, but it doesn't mean we have to stop talking, does it?

Quote:

And yes I am aware of how our justice system works ! I have been envolved in many court cases ! how many have you been envolved with ?

None.

I have no idea how you have been involved with the Justice System, be it lawyer or defendant or witness, but given your experiences, do you really think that a system that increases the risks of convicting the innocent or maybe could even try someone for something they haven't actually done would be *better* than what we have at the moment?

Or is the answer a case of "Special Pleading"? "No, *except* in *these* cases?"

Stuartbe · 23-03-2004, 23:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

In 2001 over five *THOUSAND* children were killed or seriously injured in accidents on Britain's roads.

http://www.theaa.com/staticdocs/pdf...hild_safety.pdf

Can you *really* just ignore that with a glib comment??

Why are you arguing with yourself

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...2&postcount=97

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...1&postcount=73

Piere did not post the comments in post 97 - you did !

23-03-2004, 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuartbe

Why are you arguing with yourself

Piere did not post the comments in post 97 - you did !

I got the quoting wrong. I have now corrected it.

downquark1 · 24-03-2004, 08:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by zendawn

I think we hear him being interviewed too.

Yeah I watched the 2nd half of that program. He was not convicted and no pictures were found on his computer, he may have been telling the thruth.

Pierre · 24-03-2004, 08:17

Quote:

Quote:
Nothing personal - I am sure you are a nice guy but your prioritys are well screwed up !!!!!

Which, I think, says it all.

In my opinion I think you're right.

There are far,far,far to many people concerned about the rights of the Paedophile (and criminals in general)

The sentences are too leniant, and when they are let out the support from social services and police just isn't good enough.

Quote:

Quote:
And I don't dispute that. The shame is that before you have the "evidence" that a Paedophile is a re-offender a child must either be raped or killed.

Yes, I agree it is a shame, however until you have the ability to read people's minds or peer into the future, the next best option is to give them psychological counselling, put them on the sex offenders register and monitor their behaviour, to try to *prevent* them from re-offending.

We don't have to read their minds, we know what they are, they have already proved what they are and been convicted for what they are.

"Counselling" yes stick them in a room "Paedos Anomonous" I doubt the "counselling" available to them from the state is of the quality or the quantity that would be required to have a lasting affect. Yes, that is an assumption but you only have to look at the quality of other social services to know that I am not wrong, And I still stand by main point of this thread that they cannot be "cured".

Put them on a register, yes. I believe the guy that killed Sarah Payne was on a register. Registers do nothing.

Monitor their behaviour, again how much resource is there to monitor their behaviour? they cannot be watched "all of the time". I suppose tagging hooked up to GPS system would be an option.

Try to prevent them from re-offending, Sorry, trying isn't good enough. They "must" be preveted from re-offending.

We are not talking about suspected paedo's here. This are ones that have been convicted. If we let them out and they kill or rape again we are guilty of negligence. I am suprised Sarah Paynes family did not sue the authorities for putting her daughter ar risk. I would.

How can you look the parents of a murdered child in the eye and say "sorry, we made mistake, we shouldn't have let him out, we should have watched him a bit more carefully. We wont let him out again though"

Not good enough - Horse gate close gone after has.